BS3998 2010- putting the specific into specification

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Ha ha, this is so true! Although I agree with Tony that we should all get to know the new 3998 well, I wouldn't be too worried about being caught out by a TO - unless you are writing a tender document or something.

 

NO? how about the recommendations for calculating the maximum cuts/diameter of cuts from stem diameter?

 

you can bet your bottom dollar some smart arse is going to be giving climbers a hard time with this one!

 

and what about the restrictions/lack of flexibility for the climber when entering a tree so specifically specified that he has to force himself to go into fatiging postions or potentialy more risk enhanced climbing situations to achieve the designated reduction points?

 

its all well and good specing to such prescise methods, but what about the reality of tree assesment from ground being a total removal from the in tree reality of the working scenario? only a climber understands this one

 

I have a lot of issues to raise, or rather talk about in a constructive and helpful manner, but need to be well read before I do, oh and while im at it, if you drive your truck on the grass to shorten the drag and drive over any RPA you will need to inspect the guidence for it states similar rott protection measures to BS 5837, also applying this to dropping chunks that can and do dig in/compact or damage roots/cambium, including all those little lumps you bounce through the canopy

[Alinicoll]

Ha ha, this is so true! Although I agree with Tony that we should all get to know the new 3998 well, I wouldn't be too worried about being caught out by a TO - unless you are writing a tender document or something.

 

A friend of mine had an application for x% sent back because it didn`t specify volume, limb length etc.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

A friend of mine had an application for x% sent back because it didn`t specify volume, limb length etc.

 

percentage pec is not to current BS3998, so was a legitimate refusal on spec alone.

[Alinicoll]

Exactly

[arbutus]

Hi,

Yes I have a copy....and "slowly" digesting it...I'm trying to get my brains working on the "thins" being of percentages:confused1: and Crown reductions being on meter-age:confused1: a thin not being suitable when specifying a crown reduction ...you need to be a mathematician on the height to crown height reductions.....bloody hell I am ....still might get my head sorted when I speak to others on here about it

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Im glad you raised these points, there is a lot of "refinement" within the new standard regarding reduction/thinning specifications. I will read that section tonight and try to see exactly what the score is.

 

Arbutus, do you have some specific questions about the issues you raise?

[Paul Barton]

I wouldn't get your panties in a twist about it - remember that British Standards are RECOMMENDATIONS not rules or regulations.

 

Also, do you really think that a climber is supposed to take a measuring tape in to the tree with them in order to ensure that their cuts are the correct diameter? And how is a TO or supervisor going to check that, or the number of cuts made during a reduction?

 

The BS is guidance for good practise, nothing more.

 

As I said before, we should all digest the contents and know the new BS well - it's a good document overall I think with some significant improvements on the 1989 version. But just remember it's not the law!

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I wouldn't get your panties in a twist about it - remember that British Standards are RECOMMENDATIONS not rules or regulations.

 

Also, do you really think that a climber is supposed to take a measuring tape in to the tree with them in order to ensure that their cuts are the correct diameter? And how is a TO or supervisor going to check that, or the number of cuts made during a reduction?

 

The BS is guidance for good practise, nothing more.

 

As I said before, we should all digest the contents and know the new BS well - it's a good document overall I think with some significant improvements on the 1989 version. But just remember it's not the law!

 

Hi Paul (hope yer well!)

 

Your right "it's not the law"...until it's condition in a TPO consent and then, effectively, it is.

 

Nonetheless, 'love it or lothe it', it is "industry best practice" and ignore it at our peril...or more particularly put "ALL WORK TO BS3998" on our business stationary and then diverge from it kinda misses the point. This is an opportunity to yet again raise the professional standing and status of our industry and further marginalise the 'less scrupulous'.

 

The seminars are useful and at 50 quid a throw (+VAT, sadly!) hopefully within the grasp of most. Next ones are due Tuesday 6th September (LAntra House, Stoneleigh Park nr. Warwick) and Wed. 7th Sept. (CApel Manor) and they'll be on the AA website soon.

 

Regarding further guidance on tree work specs, the arb consulatncy who developed the training course 'Aspect Tree Consultancy' (Devon), and who have a very strong parctical industry background, are working on guidance which we hope will be available soon.

 

Thanks all..

Paul

 

 

PS SOrry Paul, just picked your post for the subject matter nowt else.

[Amelanchier]

Also, do you really think that a climber is supposed to take a measuring tape in to the tree with them in order to ensure that their cuts are the correct diameter? And how is a TO or supervisor going to check that, or the number of cuts made during a reduction?

 

I doubt the authors intended that particular guideline to be any more precise than the previous percentage approach.

 

Did anyone undertaking a 30% reduction of crown volume measure it beforehand to ensure that they didn't remove 32%? On a 15% reduction of height and width did anyone take a tape measure up the tree to ensure that they only removed 1.297m from the 8.65m spread? Did anyone do 10% thins (neccessarily of leaf bearing area) in the winter on deciduous species?

 

As Paul says, guidelines are exactly that - guidelines.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I doubt the authors intended that particular guideline to be any more precise than the previous percentage approach.

 

Did anyone undertaking a 30% reduction of crown volume measure it beforehand to ensure that they didn't remove 32%? On a 15% reduction of height and width did anyone take a tape measure up the tree to ensure that they only removed 1.297m from the 8.65m spread? Did anyone do 10% thins (neccessarily of leaf bearing area) in the winter on deciduous species?

 

As Paul says, guidelines are exactly that - guidelines.

 

Tony, I don't beleive the standard seeks to remove the climbers judgement as the person in the top of the tree looking for the best position to prune back to. However under the current regime we see a very wide interpretation of, say, a 30% reduction of 20m (high) x 10m (wide) tree.

 

Firstly is it:

1. Tree height reduction

2. Tree crown radial reduction

3. Tree crown volume reduction

...as these are very different but all are valid as a 'reduction'.

 

Secondly 30% (this is down to the climbers interpretation and can vary widely, hence some more detailed guidance is needed.)

 

1. Remaining tree = 14m high.

2. Remaining tree = approx. 17m high (taking 'rounded' 10m crown, for instance)

3. Remaining tree = approx. 19m high (taking the BS3998 guidance that a 30% crwon volume reduction equate to approx. 12% radial reduction)

 

The above is a very rushed, and not a well thought out reply, but I hope it serves, at least in part, to illustrate why we need to be more prescriptive, not arguing over a few centimeters here and there, for the benefit of all.

 

We will never be producing for instance an engineering type spec for tree work, as you quite rightly state the standard is a guide, BUT use of terms such as "30% reduction" is 'imprecise and unsatisfactory'...in the words of BS3998 2010.

 

I see this as an opportunity for the industry to get on board and raise the professionalism bar, again to further marginalise the not so professional. I sincerely hope the industry is 'on board' here...and nothing (directly) to do with 'ARB Approval', but whilst you are pruning to this standard you may as well...STOP IT!!!

 

Thanks for your post.

Paul

Edited July 18, 2011 by AA Teccie (Paul)